Andrews v. Sazerac Company, Inc.
- Subramanian
- 1:23-cv-01060
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Andrews v. Sazerac: Judge Subramanian granted leave to file a motion seeking to exclude evidence, without deciding whether the evidence should be excluded.
The ruling allows the plaintiff and the certified class to formally challenge evidence submitted by Sazerac in support of its pending summary-judgment motion, but it does not yet determine whether that evidence will be excluded.
What happened
In Andrews v. Sazerac Company, Inc., the plaintiff asked for permission to challenge evidence that Sazerac submitted with its pending motion for summary judgment. The request concerned declarations and exhibits offered by several witnesses.
The plaintiff argued that some witnesses were disclosed too late, that two outside experts were not properly identified or supported, and that other exhibits and a witness were never disclosed during discovery. The plaintiff also argued that admitting the materials would cause prejudice because there was not enough opportunity to question the witnesses or evaluate the studies.
Judge Arun Subramanian granted permission to file a motion seeking to exclude the evidence. Judge Subramanian did not decide whether any of the evidence should actually be excluded and stated that issue would be decided later. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 123.
The detailed version
- Andrews v. Sazerac Company, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-01060
- Subramanian
- Dec. 2, 2025
Background
The court addressed a letter concerning a discovery dispute involving evidentiary materials Sazerac submitted with its pending motion for summary judgment. The letter was submitted by counsel representing the plaintiff and the Certified Class of Southern Comforter Malt Purchasers in New York.
Requested relief
The plaintiff requested permission to file a motion in limine, which is a motion asking the court to decide whether evidence may be considered. The requested motion would seek to exclude declarations from Adam Wilkins, Danny Suich, Jessica Figueroa, James Restivo, and Natalie Cianci, along with certain exhibits.
The plaintiff argued that the Wilkins and Suich declarations should be excluded because the witnesses were disclosed only eight days before the deadlines for completing fact discovery and filing the plaintiff’s class-certification motion. The plaintiff relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c), which can bar use of information or witnesses that were not properly disclosed.
The plaintiff also argued that the Figueroa and Restivo declarations should be excluded because they relied on expert opinions, but Sazerac allegedly did not identify the witnesses as experts by the applicable deadline. The plaintiff further argued that the declarations did not satisfy the disclosure and reliability requirements for expert evidence, including because the submissions did not adequately explain the methods used and, in Restivo’s case, included only one page of a report.
Finally, the plaintiff argued that exhibits D through F attached to the Cianci declaration had not been produced during discovery and that Cianci had not been disclosed as a witness.
Ruling
Judge Arun Subramanian granted the plaintiff permission to file a motion seeking to exclude the evidentiary materials from consideration on summary judgment. The court expressly stated that it was not deciding whether the materials should be excluded. The court said it would rule on that issue when the motion was filed and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 123.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.